A 'Wake-Up Call' for Britain? The Surge in Violent Political Rhetoric
The families of murdered Members of Parliament, David Amess and Jo Cox, have issued a stark warning following a noticeable escalation in violent political language across Britain. Their concerns are not only about specific threats but a broader, "insidious" normalization of language calling for political figures to be killed.
While fatal attacks—like the recent synagogue bombing in Manchester and the targeting of Muslims—have rightly focused attention on violent antisemitism and Islamophobia, a parallel fear is growing: that high-profile political figures are increasingly being put in harm’s way by a toxic atmosphere.
Echoes of Tragedy and New Threats
The issue has been underscored by several recent, alarming incidents. A Reform UK councillor was suspended after being linked to a social media account that explicitly called for Labour leader Keir Starmer to be shot. Separately, a man was arrested at a major far-right rally in London last month for allegedly threatening to kill the Prime Minister.
The situation gained an international dimension when Elon Musk addressed the crowd at the same rally, making comments—including the statement that "violence is coming"—that later drew condemnation from Downing Street.
This spike in extreme rhetoric follows a tense summer marked by anti-immigration protests, heated "culture war" flashpoints, and a surge in online content—including podcasts and YouTube videos—predicting a civil war.
A Family's Plea
Katie Amess, daughter of the late Conservative MP David Amess, spoke ahead of the fourth anniversary of her father's death. She described the murder of rightwing activist Charlie Kirk in the US as a "triggering moment" that must serve as a "wake-up call" for the UK.
"My father was someone who had just as many friends in the Labour party as in the Conservative party... he would be horrified at the insidious way in which dehumanising language has increasingly crept into social media," she said.
Her message is clear: "We can’t bring my father back, but we can surely learn lessons and realise that it is time to dial down the temperature of what is being said both online and offline."
Polarization and Inconsistent Policing
Brendan Cox, who was married to Jo Cox when she was shot and stabbed by a far-right extremist during the 2016 EU referendum campaign, warned that high levels of polarization and division in Britain are making political violence more probable.
He sees a dangerous trend mirroring the US: “In the US, our nearest cultural neighbour, there is a zeitgeist of renewed political violence... what has happened in the US is being used as another way of stoking political division,” he explained.
Those on the right are also voicing concerns about their safety. Nigel Farage accused Keir Starmer of "inciting violence" against Reform UK members by leveling accusations of racism at the party. Farage, who himself has faced threats, has called on police to act against TikTok users who he says have called for him to be shot.
The Problem of Precedent
Despite prompt action in some high-profile cases, an inconsistent approach between police forces is drawing criticism.
The issue was starkly highlighted by a video featuring a far-right activist, Chris Boyall, involved in anti-asylum seeker protests in Leicestershire. In footage seen by The Guardian, Boyall, who runs the "England Till I Die" YouTube channel, called for the assassination of Keir Starmer.
“I would love to see Keir Starmer get shot dead outside No 10 Downing Street… straight in his head… gone,” he told his 21,000 subscribers, even specifying a date.
Leicestershire police confirmed they reviewed the video but stated that, "at this time, no criminal offence has been identified," citing the need to balance freedom of expression with protection from harm.
This response was questioned by the group Stand Up to Racism, which argued that a specific call for assassination, including the method and location, should not be dismissed.
The Deterrent Factor
Brendan Cox insists that this rhetoric falls outside the bounds of legitimate free speech. “We don’t, and have never had, an interpretation of free speech which means you can incite violence,” he stressed.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, voiced concern that the acceptability of using violence will "creep up" if those threatening it are not prosecuted.
He argued that counter-terrorism powers may sometimes be necessary for politically motivated attacks or violent threats against elected officials. “Unless perpetrators are caught and prosecuted, there is insufficient deterrent. The acceptability of using violence to attack democratic institutions will creep up without a more consistent response.”